Anthrax Scientist - show trial victim?

[tinrobot]

I found it very interesting that the anthrax scientist who sadly committed suicide was conveniently set to be indicted for a 7 year old crime right before the election. Reminds me of the decision to put the Guantanamo inmates on trial this fall as well.

Was the motive of the administration to prosecute this scientist for a valid crime or was their motive to try and drag up the events surrounding 9/11 once again in time for another election?

[Vincardog]

1. drag up the events surrounding 9/11 once again in time for another election? DUH ya think?

[Marr]

2. Or just another right-wing terrorist.

[annabanana]

3. There is a lot more "There" there...

Check out this piece by Glen Greenwald:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

link: (you may have to wait for a real brief ad)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

[global1]

4. Again - Too Many Coincidences Here And All Happening At A Convenient Time.....

and who benefits by this suicide? Certainly gets the FBI off the hook. Won't even come to a trial now because the suspect is dead. And note the FBI calls Ivins a 'suspect'. But because he's dead now - we can close the case.

Also - gets *Co off the hook. Another loose end neatly tied up.

And I wonder when this will enter into McCain's campaign rhetoric?

I'm sorry - I've got my tinfoil hat on and it's too tight today. I really don't believe anything I read or hear anymore. I always look for something beneath the surface. I guess I took the phrase 'Follow the Money' too seriously.

[Muttocracy]

6. I'm with ya - there is not enough metal foil to go around for recent news. nt

[tinrobot]

8. I think all they wanted was to prosecute someone... anyone.

If he had a lot of "dirt" on the administration, I don't think they would have charged him. I think he was innocent and the planned arrest was just so they could say they "caught" someone as well as drag up the past in time for the election.

If they had prosecuted him, the trail would never have concluded before November, so the outcome was inconsequential to the administration and the election, particularly if the guy was found innocent.

[Zenlitened]

5. That was my gut reaction, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3715166&mesg_id=3715166

Impossible to say for sure, of course. And there certainly are valid arguments against.

But, for the Republicoids, it is IMPERATIVE that they get national security back in the headlines as voters' number-one issue.

It's the only way they can have even a chance of winning the White House. If the economy is issue number one by the end of October/start of November, they're toast. And they know it.

[screembloodymurder]

7. Didn't you know, he had a long history of homicidal threats.

Crazy bastard was a homicidal maniac. Took seven years, but the FBI was onto him.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-08-01_D929KGRO0&show_article=1&cat=breaking

API is just another three letter government agency.